:I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace [http://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/]

-

+

-

I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace [http://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/]

Wallace published his first edition of Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics in 1996. It has since become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook.[1] He also served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible and has founded the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. The purpose of the institution is to preserve the Greek text of the New Testament by taking digital photographs of all extant Greek New Testament Manuscripts.[2]

Wallace, along with DTS colleague Darrell L. Bock, has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit orthodox, evangelical views of Jesus—including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman[2]. Wallace critiqued Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why for misrepresenting commonly held views of textual criticism, especially in Ehrman's view of the "orthodox corruption of Scripture."[3] Wallace and Ehrman dialogued at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in April, 2008.

Hatred for the Textus Receptus

For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT textual critics could speak with one accord: The textus receptus (TR) had finally been laid to rest. In 1899 Marvin Vincent referred to it as an "historical monument" that "has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text." A. T. Robertson in 1926 declared: "The Textus Receptus is as dead as Queen Anne." Eight years later Leo Vaganay similarly pronounced last rites over the corpse. And just three decades ago Bruce Metzger could justifiably dismiss the contemporary defense of the Byzantine text in a mere footnote.

The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe (in particular the Netherlands and Great Britain) are embracing a view that was left for dead more than a century ago—namely, that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. ([ http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_185-215_Wallace.pdf The Majority-Text Theory - History, Methods, and Critique ]. Daniel B. Wallace.)

Rejection of biblical and historical preservation

"Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture." —Dan Wallace

“Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” (Dr. Daniel Wallace, “Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation”)

Uncertainty about scripture

I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace [4]

Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today, Ed. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer. Biblical Studies Press, 2005. ISBN 0-7375-0068-9. Two articles in this book were written by Wallace: “The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical,” and “The Witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16: Interpretation and Implications.”

"The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object - Complement Construction in the New Testament." Grace Theological Journal vol 6, 1985. 91-112.

"The Relation of Adjective to Noun in Anarthrous Constructions in the New Testament." Novum Testamentum vol 26, 1984. 128-167.

"The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-kai-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament." Grace Theological Journal vol 4, 1983. 59-84.

References

1. His mentor at Biola was Greek scholar Dr. Harry A. Sturz. Sturz influenced Wallace to adopt a text critical position of Byzantine primacy. Over the years, however, Wallace's textual views have evolved to be classified as 'reasoned eclecticism,' the view that each variant is to be considered on its own apart from text-type priorities.[5]